ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Ah, sarcasm. Low and no-cost contraception is already available to those who make the effort to obtain them; there are some out there that will not use contraception, no matter how freely available and inexpensive we make them. The effort to force feed the American public free access to contraceptives and abortifacients is not a medical or public health consideration but a purely political one.

As for Viagra, it is a "recreational" drug and should be treated as such (uncovered or with significant co-pay), not used as justification for public funding of other non-essential services.

Not to rain on your parade, but annulment (de facto divorce) in the Catholic Church has been around for centuries; it may be discouraged but is not uncommon. And kids born out of wedlock aren't guilty of anything (it was the parents). Why would the Church persecute them? (They wouldn't.)

And the larger issue is: Why should any employer be forced by the federal government to pay for any employee's health insurance at all, much less a laundry list of specified coverages mandated by the unelected head of HHS. Companies started offering health insurance as a way of getting around the idiotic wage freezes placed by progressives like FDR. Now the spawn of FDR want business to pay for everyone's health care. Before you know it, they'll be pushing for a health care draft, forcing anyone who wants to be a physician into mandatory public service, since the "rights" of those whose votes politicians buy seem to trump everyone else's.

But on the bright side, if Obamacare IS allowed to survive, and one of the next presidents is a Republican, he/she could appoint a Secretary of HHS (who will have tremendous power under OC, not constrained by Congress) that could change ALL the arbitrary rules to the opposite end of the ideologic spectrum, perhaps requiring all women to have counselling and ultrasounds before allowing them to get abortions or attend abstinence and STD instruction before allowing BCPs to be prescribed.

Oh, you mean THAT would violate the rights of liberal Americans? Well, they'll just have to deal with it, like all those who came before them. I'm sure that all those folks who chose to force their ideal health care system on others really didn't consider that some day those others might be in possession of the weapon and they in the crosshairs.

Aetna's CEO: "The end of insurance companies, the way we’ve run the business in the past, is here."

"The Affordable Care Act in particular, with its ban on medical underwriting, has made the traditional health insurance business model untenable in the long term, he said. Nonetheless, he offered measured praise for the law, even citing the controversial medical loss ratio rules as having a smoothing effect on premium swings. “We got pulled through the crucible against our will and have been reshaped because of it,” he said. “For most of what has already been implemented, it has been a pretty good thing.” http://www.healthdatamanagement.com/news/HIMSS12-Aetna-CEO-insurers-face...

How sad you think of this as a war. And how you can get libruls back for providing for the medical health of women and a fiscally sound regulation for the insurance companies and employers, regardless of who their employer is.

Hey, I could achieve that same affect and more, if you just give me the power that the bill gives the head of HHS. The bullying shown by Kathleen Sibelius to date is just the tip of the Obamacare iceberg.

And maybe I "think of this as a war", because the Democrats treated it JUST LIKE THAT, when they passed the thing. They weren't looking for something with broad bipartisan support; they insisted upon "their way or the highway". Why should the response to this overstep of constitutional authority be any less "scorched earth"? If liberals want to force feed America their health care wet dream (the majority of us STILL oppose the legislation) and further fuel the debt creating machine that is progressivism, they should expect a little blowback. It started in November 2010, and I suppose it will come to a head in about 8-9 months.

As for insurance companies like Aetna, they will find a way to play the system to their own advantage, just like they always do. It is in their best interest to go with the flow. Crony capitalism being what it is, those who play nice with the folks in power always gain the advantage. Just look at what GE has done.

A bill full of Republican ideas. Yep, war, I tell ya. They inserted all their stuff in committee, voted it out of committee, and refuse to support in public and on the floor. Usually, we'd call that chicken and they would be rightfully criticized! Look at your leader in the Republican primary who implemented mandated insurance with abortion coverage and birth control coverage (and now run and hides about it). Another Republican in the race lobbied for the mandate. Keep letting them fool ya! Deny what is right in front of you and who is responsible for the parts you hate. (How do you do that?!?!) Which socialist, Marxist, Fascist, Nazi do you vote for in the Republican Primary?!?!

What ticks me off if everyone is on one side or the other and not one single freaking person has brought up that infertility is not covered in O-freaking-bamacare. Infertility is a legitimate medical condition that causes pain and heartbreak to countless couples across the US. It is the opinion of this humble man who wants to be a father (and who wants to see his wife be a mother) that the government sees pregnancy as a disease to be treated while infertility and it's causes are not.

If I didn't think it was a completely moronic thought I would swear the government is moving toward population control.

Well, it's the big government progressives, and they are present in both parties, the difference being that the DNC is now almost completely eat up with them at the national level, and the RNC is only partly.

The only hope for this constitutional republic surviving is to overpower or exorcise those within the Republican Party and regain some semblence of responsible government. The Obama budget proposal, which even though it raises taxes by over $1.5 trillion in ten years, STILL expands the debt (no year less than 22% of GDP in spending, while assuming economic growth of over 4% - what a laugh) is completely irresponsible, just like his health care fiasco.

Therein lies one of the many problems with "all-you-can-eat-buffet" medicine courtesy of the federal government. There are thousands of nonlife-threatening "legitimate medical conditions" for which folks would like someone else to pay. It just cannot be done; the cost would be so absolutely overwhelming that 100% of our GDP couldn't pay for it.

So, where does one draw the line? The most cost effective is to give each person control over and fiscal responsibility for their own medical care, supplementing the contributions of those who truly cannot afford it for basic medical care and screening. The notion that government health care (or government services, in general) can be all things to all people is utopian nonsense that would bankrupt us long before we got a small fraction of the way there. It also assumes a completely benign, all-knowing, all-powerful ruling elite; and they say WE'RE nuts for believing in a supreme being.

Based upon his last two posts, I take exception only to his characterization of liberals as "ignorant". I think liberals know exactly what they are doing/demanding and that they have an inkling of the end result but simply don't see it as a problem. It's ideology over intellect. I do know a few postal employees that are very good at what they do and quite personable/conscientious. However, knowing the USPS situation, I can't argue that they haven't been overpaid.

And I'm not about to search out Pudbert's old posts to find justification for your request; you'll have to provide specifics. There's just nothing here that is any more outrageous than what you, sanity and xxx post. And I don't think any of you is "a disease".